SURINDER PAL v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

complaint, formal FIR was registered. The inquest report of Inderjeet Singh (deceased) was prepared by Jasvir Singh, ASI. Post-mortem on the dead body of Inderjeet Singh was also got conducted vide postmortem report (Ex.PA). Driving licence of the accused was taken into possession on 18.12.1996. The van PB-10-0409 and its R.C. were also taken into possession. While separate memo the motorcycle of the deceased was also taken into possession. On 20.12.1996, ASI Jasvir Singh had got photograph of the motorcycle and the van. Site plan regarding the place of occurrence was also prepared. Accused was arrested on 18.12.1996 and after completion of the investigation, the challan against the accused was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Section 304-A IPC was framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -3- In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr.Jaspal Singh (PW1), who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Inderjeet Singh. He had found 9 injuries out of which, 3 were lacerated wounds, 3 were multiple abrasions and 3 were contusions. This witness on dissection found that 3rd to 10th ribs were fractured on right side, lung was rupture and right haemethorax was full of blood. In the opinion of this witness, the cause of death was due to shock an haemorrhage, as a result of extensive injuries associated with fractures which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW2 Mandeep Singh is the brother of the deceased Inderjeet Singh and he has corroborated the statement (Ex.PB) made to the Police and also given the details regarding occurrence of the accident. PW3 Jagjit Singh is the eye witness who was following the complainant and he deposed about the accident in question and corroborated the statement of the complainant. Surjit Ram, PW4 Transport Clerk proved the driving licence of the accused (ExPW4/A). Manjit Singh was given up being won over by the accused. Learned APP had given up H.C. Jagannath being unnecessary. Since the prosecution had failed to produce any other witness despite granting of last opportunity. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by order vide order dated 20.11.2000. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in evidence was put to him. He denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. No evidence had been led by the accused in his defence. Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -4- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated in the foregoing paragraph. The appeal filed by the accused-appellant against his conviction and sentence has also been dismissed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 29.4.2002. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in this case ASI Jasvir Singh was the Investigating Officer and he conducted certain proceedings with regard to the case, but despite opportunities given to the prosecution, he had not been examined, meaning thereby, the proceeding and the material documents prepared by him goes unproved and make the prosecution case doubtful. Learned counsel further contended that the accused was identified for the first time in the Court, but the identification parade was not got conducted as the accused was arrested on

18.12.1996, i.e. after 7 days of the occurrence of accident. On this account also, benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that as per statement of the complainant, the accident had taken place on 11.12.1996, at 5.45 p.m. But, the matter was reported tot eh Police at 6.00 a.m. on 12.12.1996. There is thus, delay of about 12 hours and in the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case, the involvement of the accused in this case cannot be ruled out, as there was ample time and opportunity for the Police to involve the accused in this case. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt and the benefit of doubt may be extended to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State controverted the aforesaid point of arguments by contending that first duty of the Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -5- complainant was to take care of his brother Inderjeet Singh who had received multiple injuries in the accident. First of all, he arranged for a vehicle for taking his brother to the hospital, Jamsher and thereafter he was referred to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and on that account sufficient had been consumed as a result of which the delay in lodging the FIR had occurred. For this reason, the delay occurred has been fully explained by the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further contended that despite best efforts made by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer could not be examined. The Investigating Officer had to prove certain documents of formal nature. Both the prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW2 and PW3 had made consistent statements regarding the occurrence of the accident and therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way effect the prosecution case. Learned State counsel also contended that on the very next day of occurrence Mandeep Singh, complainant had made the statement before the Police, in which he had specifically named the accused-appellant. PW2 Mandeep Singh and PW3 Jagjit Singh had identified the accused in the Court. Therefore, identity of the accused has been duly proved on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. No doubt, ASI Jasvir Singh, the Investigating Officer had not been examined by the prosecution, but in this case mainly he had recorded the statement of the complainant, which has been duly proved by the complainant on record. He had also prepared some formal documents and non-proving of the certain documents does not effect the prosecution case. Moreover, for any lapse occurred on the part of the prosecution the victim Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -6- cannot be allowed to suffer. Infact, certain documents could have been proved on record by the prosecution from H.C. Jagannath who was a witness of certain memos and was very much present before the trial Court, but the learned APP had given up the said witness as unnecessary. It is to be mentioned here that when the Investigating Officer had not appeared in the witness box, the APP should not have given up H.C. Jagannath as unnecessary. Thus, this case has not been conducted in a proper manner for which the victim is not responsible. In these circumstances, non- examination of the Investigating Officer does not effect the prosecution case in any manner. With regard to the identification of the accused, it is mentioned here that on the very next day of the accident, i.e. 12.12.1996, Mandeep Singh, complainant had specifically named the accused-appellant in his statement (Ex.PB) made to the Police. PW2 Mandeep Singh and PW3 Jagjit Singh had identified the accused in the Court also and stated that it was the accused-appellant who had caused the accident, as a result of which Inderjeet Singh had died. There is no reason of motive for the Police or the prosecution witnesses or any enmity to involve the accused-appellant falsely in this case and leave the real culprit. Therefore, the identity of the accused cannot be doubted. In this case, Mandeep Singh, complainant has explained in his statement (Ex.PB) that first of all they had arranged a vehicle for taking the injured deceased to the hospital at Jamsher. Thereafter, the injured was referred to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and while they were going to Jalandhar in the way Inderjeet Singh was succumbed to the injuries. It is common among the villagers that they might be ignorant of the need for informing Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -7- the Police of a crime without any lapse of time and they might not think of going to the Police Station immediately. It is natural for the kith and kin of the victim to save the victim first and their purpose was to go to the nearby hospital for treatment of the injured. From a grief stricken complainant party it is also not expected to act in a mechanical way. In these circumstances, delay in giving the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. It is mentioned here that the accused-appellant had got recorded in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as under:- “1. Have you anything to say? A. I am innocent, I may be pardoned.” If the accused-appellant was innocent, he need to beg pardon. The word 'beg pardon' clearly depicts his involvement in the case in hand. No doubt, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs, but here the accused- appellant had taken a waivering defence by putting the same to the prosecution witnesses. On the one hand, the accused-appellant had suggested to the prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW2 and PW3 that the accident had taken place with some other vehicle. On the other hand, a suggestion was put by the defence to PW3 Jagjit Singh that Inderjeet Singh was under the influence of liquor and he fell down under the influence of liquor. Moreover, such type of multiple injuries and fractures cannot be caused by fall and no defence witness has been examined to support his version as set up to the prosecution witnesses. PW1 Dr. Jaspal Singh did not mention in his report (Ex.PA) that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. Even no suggestion was put to the prosecution witnesses to the effect that they had any reason or motive for falsely implicating the accused. The Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -8- appellant-accused belong to village Balnau, Nakodar, while the accident had taken place near village Jashmer. The complainant and Jagjit Singh, PW are also residents of village Jashmer. Therefore, there is no material to prove that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. The aforesaid factual position strengthen the case of the prosecution. PW1 Dr. Jaspal Singh had found lacerated wounds, multiple abrasions and contusions and even 3rd to 10th ribs were also found fractured. Such injuries are only possible during the accident. Even information supplied by the Police to the Doctor was that death of Inderjeet Singh had occurred at 5.30 a.m. on 12.12.1996, due to road side accident. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence, despite giving of opportunity. Thus, it is proved on record that the death of Inderjeet Singh had occurred due to the accident. There are consistent statements of PW2 Mandeep Singh and PW3 Jagjit Singh that the accused-appellant who was present in the Court had caused the accused by rash and negligent driving of van bearing PB-01- 0409 in a Police way which resulted in the death of Inderjeet Singh. From the above statement of the both the prosecution witnesses, coupled with medical evidence, it is amply proved on record that it was accused Surinder Pal who was driver of van No.PB-01-0409 and he drove the van rashly and negligently and due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-appellant, death of Inderjeet Singh had been caused by him. Moreover, it is not the case of the defence that Inderjeet Singh was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, it is a well known fact that road accidents are on the rise and many of these accidents result in fatalities. It is also apparent that Crl.R. No.933 of 2002 -9- investigating agencies are not investigating such accidents in a proper manner. In such a situation, what is the fault of the victim. In view of my above discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below with regard to conviction of the accused-appellant. However, the accident had taken place on 11.12.1996, and the appellant was arrested in this case on 18.12.1996. The challan against the accused was presented on 28.1.1997. Since then, the accused-appellant has been facing the agony of long and protracted trial. Therefore, I find that the ends of justice would be met if sentence of 1½ years R.I. awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced to R.I. for one year. The fine imposed by the Courts below is maintained. Crl. Revision petition is dismissed, subject to the reduction in sentence. The bail/surety bonds of the petitioner are cancelled and forfeited to the State. He be taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of sentence. February 24, 2010 Gulati (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE